Semper Fudge
Apt Tagline
- Joined
- May 3, 2021
- Messages
- 4,133
Ahhh the old “I’m not owned, it was a joke!” routine.So was I. Sarcasm doesn't come across well.
Ahhh the old “I’m not owned, it was a joke!” routine.So was I. Sarcasm doesn't come across well.
Someone who stole the money in the first place.Who forgives 1.5 billion debt? Doesn't make any sense.
This man knows the game.I still say, that despite all the internal crap we had about ML and sanctions etc, all the really rich people would avoid these because the heads of the banks are in it with them.
Look at HSBC and Barclays in more recent times, all guilty of helping launder money.
Took Vlad for a drink on Sunday…That’s Roman. Monday brokering peace with Russia. Wednesday gives 1.5bn to charity. It’s just what the man does.
That's basically heaven for Tuchel.We'd be far better off had neither of those signings happened!
If the rumours of Boechy from the Dodgers' consortium are accurate and we're run like they are, that's encouraging. They combine a sophisticated data-driven approach with huge financial muscle - and they have a history of going all-in for the right players. I'd much rather we spent £150m on Haaland instead of £100m on Lukaku last summer - that's the type of move the Dodgers have made (e.g. trading for Mookie Betts, trading for Max Scherzer, signing Trevor Bauer even if it didn't work out, etc.).
WeePotA Chelsea fan who's club built on oil complaining about oil clubs, you couldn't make it up. WeePot it is from now on. Glass houses and all that.
Also the word comrade gave me a chuckle.
Thank God most your fans aren't so silly.
very goodTook Vlad for a drink on Sunday…
I appreciate you want to be optimistic and I don’t want to shit on it too much as it must feel pretty awful right now given you’d never have expected this a week ago.We'd be far better off had neither of those signings happened!
If the rumours of Boechy from the Dodgers' consortium are accurate and we're run like they are, that's encouraging. They combine a sophisticated data-driven approach with huge financial muscle - and they have a history of going all-in for the right players. I'd much rather we spent £150m on Haaland instead of £100m on Lukaku last summer - that's the type of move the Dodgers have made (e.g. trading for Mookie Betts, trading for Max Scherzer, signing Trevor Bauer even if it didn't work out, etc.).
I like it!WeePot
Oh mate I fully agree with everything you've said. I'm definitely grasping at straws - from a sporting perspective Chelsea will almost certainly suffer under any owner who isn't Roman. You're also right to point out the stadium concerns - especially for American capitalists for whom that will almost certainly be a sticking point.I appreciate you want to be optimistic and I don’t want to shit on it too much as it must feel pretty awful right now given you’d never have expected this a week ago.
My concern is you’re not as great a catch as it might look on paper for a new investor. The structure is all Roman and I imagine goes with him. He’s also been absorbing debt to allow you to operate; it’s really a bit of the unknown when he walks away how that actually looks. There’s also the issues with the stadium which has put investors off before and isn’t a quick, easy or cheap fix.
I don’t think any consortium will come in and start operating by throwing huge sums of money around. Just can’t see it. You’ll be run in a more sustainable way and it will take time to adapt to a new model with regards to club spending and finances. You’ve been well looked after by Roman it seems but when he goes the luxury he provided by not running you as a business will vanish too.
It’s going to be interesting. I genuinely feel there’s a risk Roman might get caught up in this before he can sell too you know. He was named again during PMs Questions in the UK and Usmanov and Everton are starting to feel the pinch.Oh mate I fully agree with everything you've said. I'm definitely grasping at straws - from a sporting perspective Chelsea will almost certainly suffer under any owner who isn't Roman. You're also right to point out the stadium concerns - especially for American capitalists for whom that will almost certainly be a sticking point.
I guess my previous post was just meant to highlight that among MLB owners the Dodgers' ownership stands out as being willing to dig into their pockets for sporting reasons - not to be a dickhead focused on whataboutism or anything but this stands in contrast to the likes of the Glazers who have for the most part been pretty profit-driven.
That’s exactly the point. Under Roman the likes of Lukaku and Torres can be bought for a ridiculous price and still be written off if it doesn’t work out. That doesn’t happen under any ownership.We'd be far better off had neither of those signings happened!
If the rumours of Boechy from the Dodgers' consortium are accurate and we're run like they are, that's encouraging. They combine a sophisticated data-driven approach with huge financial muscle - and they have a history of going all-in for the right players. I'd much rather we spent £150m on Haaland instead of £100m on Lukaku last summer - that's the type of move the Dodgers have made (e.g. trading for Mookie Betts, trading for Max Scherzer, signing Trevor Bauer even if it didn't work out, etc.).
I don't mind it but it would be a wee bit disrespectful to the player I'm paying homage toI like it!
Be interesting to see what happens if he’s not allowed to sell.It’s going to be interesting. I genuinely feel there’s a risk Roman might get caught up in this before he can sell too you know. He was named again during PMs Questions in the UK and Usmanov and Everton are starting to feel the pinch.
He’s definitely trying to do this quickly. A few days ago he was stepping back now this.
This could get worse before it gets better sadly.
This is a key point that also seems to be getting missed. How many billionaires are there out there that care more about trophies than the bottom line. The ones that do already own football clubs as sportswashing projects.That’s exactly the point. Under Roman the likes of Lukaku and Torres can be bought for a ridiculous price and still be written off if it doesn’t work out. That doesn’t happen under any ownership.
I don’t think Chelsea fans will realise how easy it was in bringing in players until Roman is gone. You literally just bought a whole team in the space of 12 months. Simply because it’s Roman.
Mendy
Silva
Chilwell
Sarr
Havertz
Ziyech
Lukaku
Werner
And let’s not forget £72m spent on Kepa!
That kind of spending just doesn’t happen under any other ownership unless it’s a multi-billionaire who cares more about club success than business. That was Roman. To think the next owners are going to put you in a better position is extremely wishful. You honestly think Chelsea would have any issues financially to buy Haaland under Roman? Not a chance. It’s just money can’t always be the only reason a player comes.
Isn't Henry Kissinger a war criminal?so he’s now Henry Kissinger and Bill Gates ? Feck off, he’s crook, pure and simple
What about…..Isn't Henry Kissinger a war criminal?
He is very well known for installing dictatorships in LatinAmerica and Asia.
Listing Henry Kissinger as a peace maker is crazyso he’s now Henry Kissinger and Bill Gates ? Feck off, he’s crook, pure and simple
No no I don't necessarily think we're likely to be better off - but I do think that in the past we've suffered due to the whims of Roman (e.g. Shevchenko, Torres, etc) - if we had a more data-driven approach I think we'd be better placed. I guess my point is that under a smarter & less generous owner we wouldn't be stuck with the millstone that is Lukaku, for instance. Purely speculative though and almost certainly a great deal of wishful thinking on my part!That’s exactly the point. Under Roman the likes of Lukaku and Torres can be bought for a ridiculous price and still be written off if it doesn’t work out. That doesn’t happen under any ownership.
I don’t think Chelsea fans will realise how easy it was in bringing in players until Roman is gone. You literally just bought a whole team in the space of 12 months. Simply because it’s Roman.
Mendy
Silva
Chilwell
Sarr
Havertz
Ziyech
Lukaku
Werner
And let’s not forget £72m spent on Kepa!
That kind of spending just doesn’t happen under any other ownership unless it’s a multi-billionaire who cares more about club success than business. That was Roman. To think the next owners are going to put you in a better position is extremely wishful. You honestly think Chelsea would have any issues financially to buy Haaland under Roman? Not a chance. It’s just money can’t always be the only reason a player comes.
Yeah great point about him being able to sell in the first place - to your point it's telling that prospective buyers have said they were approached by Roman.It’s going to be interesting. I genuinely feel there’s a risk Roman might get caught up in this before he can sell too you know. He was named again during PMs Questions in the UK and Usmanov and Everton are starting to feel the pinch.
He’s definitely trying to do this quickly. A few days ago he was stepping back now this.
This could get worse before it gets better sadly.
We spent the best part of 4 years trying to make Torres work passing on the likes of Aguero and peak Falcao in the process. And in regards to Kepa the only reason we've managed to mitigate his signing is because we've somehow managed to find a world class keeper for peanuts else we'd be similarly trying to make it work with him even now.That’s exactly the point. Under Roman the likes of Lukaku and Torres can be bought for a ridiculous price and still be written off if it doesn’t work out. That doesn’t happen under any ownership.
I don’t think Chelsea fans will realise how easy it was in bringing in players until Roman is gone. You literally just bought a whole team in the space of 12 months. Simply because it’s Roman.
Mendy
Silva
Chilwell
Sarr
Havertz
Ziyech
Lukaku
Werner
honestly didnt think he'd end up selling, especially when the stewardship statement was made.Guess it did mean something in hindsight!
Definitely felt like the writing was on the wall and now he’s confirmed it.
@ZolaWasMagic
I think that includes waiving the 1.5b debt Chelsea owed him ?It's been quoted Roman is looking for £3billion to sell.
Seen some on social media claiming he just buys star players all the time, and they could see a scenario where he will quite happily plough money in for the elite players.One of the prospective new owners is part owner of the Dodgers and Lakers. Also a huge Hollywood entertainment guy apparently. These are teams that use the Real Madrid Galactico model.
So I don’t think we’re going to become Tottenham or Arsenal overnight like many opposition fans are hoping.
I read a report and basically it was saying the club is only worth 1.5bn at best which includes 800m of assets.I think that includes waiving the 1.5b debt Chelsea owed him ?
Lolololol.Looking at all the genuine bitterness… wow. He’s just pledged more aid to Ukraine than some countries. He started his business that he was eventually forced to sell to Putin when he was a 12 yr old orphan selling refurbished auto parts he collected from junk. He is not some lazy ex kgb shirk. He genuinely cared for Chelsea FC and all the people associated with it.
I'm not so sure about this. Don't get me wrong, the Dodgers are a model organization in terms of how they are run and putting a competitive team on the field. But its not obvious (pandemic effects aside) that they are going into their own pocket very far. They have huge revenues due to selling out a big stadium in a very wealthy part of the country and, even more importantly, a massively lucrative local TV deal (there is a national TV deal that clubs share but the real money is in local market deals and that's where teams like the Dodgers and Yankees get most of their revenue advantage).I guess my previous post was just meant to highlight that among MLB owners the Dodgers' ownership stands out as being willing to dig into their pockets for sporting reasons - not to be a dickhead focused on whataboutism or anything but this stands in contrast to the likes of the Glazers who have for the most part been pretty profit-driven.
How much has he pledged? I did read that he has instructed his "team to set up a charitable foundation where all net proceeds from the sale will be donated. The foundation will be for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine". But I'm not entirely sure what that amounts to, are you?Looking at all the genuine bitterness… wow. He’s just pledged more aid to Ukraine than some countries. He started his business that he was eventually forced to sell to Putin when he was a 12 yr old orphan selling refurbished auto parts he collected from junk. He is not some lazy ex kgb shirk. He genuinely cared for Chelsea FC and all the people associated with it.
At this point it’s pretty obvious he has deliberately been left out of sanction by both the EU and UK. Even if it were to happen eventually, he is so high profile compared to a lot of other Oligarchs that he wouldn’t repeatedly be missed.Hope he gets sanctioned before this happens.
New US task force on the scene now. Perhaps they’ll seize your club as well.At this point it’s pretty obvious he has deliberately been left out of sanction by both the EU and UK. Even if it were to happen eventually, he is so high profile compared to a lot of other Oligarchs that he wouldn’t repeatedly be missed.
Not to mention, sanctioning someone actively trying to diffuse the situation doesn’t seem like the smartest thing to do at this point.
I dont think the UK govt will touch him. Although given i was wrong re. his sale of the club, i dont think i'll be so cocky this time. But i agree with your last sentence. Latest EU list of sanctions also does not include him, but does UsmanovAt this point it’s pretty obvious he has deliberately been left out of sanction by both the EU and UK. Even if it were to happen eventually, he is so high profile compared to a lot of other Oligarchs that he wouldn’t repeatedly be missed.
Not to mention, sanctioning someone actively trying to diffuse the situation doesn’t seem like the smartest thing to do at this point.
WE came up with loans for shares. The US, Harvard, and EU. We even helped vet the people who would be allowed to participate and how the program worked. They wanted formerly state owned assets to be privately held, and this was their solution. The person you mentioned and the contacts with Yeltsin they gave him helped him get in on the loan for shares. But he had also studied the oil and gas industry in technical college and shown the ability to run 4 other businesses, and therefore met the qualifications s WE set for that program. There are plenty of US and UK businessmen with as shady, or shadier, pasts. And hating someone just because they are Russian and Rich is a dangerous and unhealthy path to go down. If they are still active in the Russian economy, participating in state owned businesses, are part of Putins Dashow? Great, go get em.Lolololol.
Abramovich was a hustler and criminal entrepreneur in the early 1990s who then conspired with Berezovsky to steal assets eventually worth billions from the Russian people via the loans-for-shares scam, then worked hand-in-hand with crime bosses to take over parts of the aluminum sector, then played a critical role in putting Vladimir Putin into the presidency and has been one of his loyal allies since then. He may have genuinely cared for Chelsea but let's not kid ourselves about who this guy is.
The debt was always pretend debt. It was basically never going to have to be fulfilled. Wiping it off is just for bookkeeping sake. They are neither better nor worse off debt wise in real terms. They are probably going to be worse off though because Roman seemed to be really mentally invested in the club which is quite hard to find from club owners usually.Sorry but can someone do the maths for dummies, he bought club, transferred it to a charity and said he wouldn't draw down on loan of a couple billion, it wasn't right what he done but how are Chelsea worse off in my very less knowckledge of this, Chelsea are better off, a loan wiped off, and what they have,
He has pledged all net proceeds. This would be all money derived from the sale minus any debts or costs associated with the sale owed by the club. Since most of those debts were owed to him, and he has written them off, then I would assume the money would at least be in the neighborhood of 2.7 billion?How much has he pledged? I did read that he has instructed his "team to set up a charitable foundation where all net proceeds from the sale will be donated. The foundation will be for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine". But I'm not entirely sure what that amounts to, are you?
I also read that he manages President Putin’s private economic affairs, according to the Spanish national intelligence committee. I also believe he was refused a Swiss residency permit, due to suspected involvement in money laundering and contacts with criminal organisations, so on that basis, I'm not so sure he's acting in the interests of Chelsea FC, as he claims, or if he's acting in his own interests by selling under the current circumstances.